Re: Definition of Money

["Harry Veeder" <eo200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
>Gunnar Tomasson:
>
<snip>
>
>There are two distinct points at issue in 'defining money', namely, the
>ANALYTICAL and the OPERATIONAL.
>
>Since the latter is a function of time, place, and circumstance, there
>exists NO OPERATIONAL definition of money that can, in principle, hold at
>all times, places, and circumstances.


It seems to me that money is nothing but operative.
It is a wonder gadget, a sort of Swiss army knife.
However, some operations are more general than others.
I believe the most ubiquitous use of money is as a device
to quantify value, to render the value of a good/service
"rational" e.g. "How much money is it worth?"

>As for the ANALYTICAL definition of money, Chris [Meakin]  hit that
>particular nail on the head when he conceived of the Creditary Principle as
>the mirror image of the Division of Labor Principle.
>
>The two Principles are as Warp and Weft to the fabric of communal economic
>activity.
>

On another list the idea was put forward that the division labour is driven
by the development of *specialized* tools, and not vice vera as argued
by Adam Smith. There is something to this idea since the sharp divisions
between labour that characterized the beginning of the industrial revolution
seem to be softening with the spread of the *general* purpose Turing machine
(a.k.a the computer.)

Harry Veeder